[Lexicog] Theoretical constructs vs. practical reference dictionaries

[Lou Hohulin]

"Mike Maxwell" <maxwell at ldc.upenn.edu> wrote:
> 'Lou Hohulin' wrote:
> > There is a problem here regarding morphosyntactic features even in
> > relation to native speakers as our audience. They have not studied
> > the lexicon or morphosyntactic structures of their language in any
> > formal way.
>
> Just in case my original msg was unclear: I think morphosyntactic features,
> as feature structures, are likely to be incomprehensible to nearly everyone.

I agree, Mike. I misunderstood what you were saying -- I was not thinking of feature 'formalism'; I was thinking of the reality behind the formalisms. Frankly, I often have a difficult time understanding symbolic representations of features.

> (Those of you reading this msg are perhaps the exception that proves the
> rule.)  For almost everyone, you want to substitute some approximate term
> for the technically correct term or structure: [case genitive] becomes
> "possessor", even though true possession may represent a small part of the
> use ("today's weather" does not imply that today owns the weather!);
> [number paucal] becomes "few", etc.

Yes. In fact, I am considering two possible English index entries for such things as affixes, pronouns and demonstratives (all referentially complex). One entry would give the formal gloss for 'ak', e.g. 1.S.F standing for first person, singular, focus, and the other index entry would be 'I'.
>
> Even for the average linguist, feature structures may be overkill for a
> number of purposes, such as interlinear text glossing.  Would the average
> field linguist (or you) rather deal in glossing with
>     [AGR [Ergative [+Speaker -Hearer -Plural]]]
> or
>     1 Singular Ergative (or abbreviated 1Sg.ERG)
> ?
>
> >> Again, for languages with lots of messy morphology (particularly
> >> prefixing morphology), the database might contain roots or stems;
> >> but the user's view might be some less abstract citation form, or
> >> (if it is an electronic publication) a way to do parsing and lookup
> >> of fully inflected forms.
> >
> > Morphology in Austronesian, Philippine-type languages is very complex
> > (messy, if you will). Almost all dictionaries are 'root'
> > dictionaries; usually the patterning of inflected forms is put in a
> > grammar sketch that is included in the dictionary.
>
> And how many native speakers can make effective use of these root
> dictionaries?  Maybe it's not too bad if the language is suffixing, but if
> it's prefixing? (or has infixing, or reduplication--perhaps with opaque
> phonology)

The language does have lots of prefixing, infixing and reduplication and roots undergo many morpho-phonological changes in form , but it seems that none of us lexicographers for Philippines languages have found any way of compiling anything but root dictionaries (particularly for verb roots, nouns are not a problem since noun morphemes are also words unless they are derived). One Filipino linguist said that if any of us attempted to compile any other type of dictionary, we would need a wheelbarrow to carry it around because the choice of an 'overarching' canonical form is impossible, and therefore, there would be a huge redundancy of entries with different inflections. We have generally taken care of inflection with fields of inflectional possibilities or annotations. Accompanying grammar sketches or separate grammars give extensive explanation of inflectional patterns. I have come to believe that speakers can be taught to use such dictionaries. That may be rationalization, but until someone comes up with a better way of doing it, I'll keep believing that.
>
> > I'd like to enjoy the preparation and baking, too!
>
> That's why I'm a linguist: I enjoy cooking; the problem lies in finding
> someone who enjoys eating my cooking.

Yes. Isn't that the truth!!
>
Lou
>


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Send the freshest Valentine's flowers with a FREE vase from only $29.99!
Shipped direct from the grower with a 7 day freshness guarantee and prices so low you save 30-55% off retail!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/_iAw9B/xdlHAA/3jkFAA/HKE4lB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->


Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lexicographylist/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     lexicographylist-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/